Director J.J. Abrams' latest film, "Super 8," comes out this Friday, but what about the highly-anticipated sequel to his 2009 take on "Star Trek"? Will it still be released next summer, as planned?

"I'm not so sure, but I know that we're trying," Abrams told CNN on Sunday at the press junket for "Super 8." "We're working on the script and story and doing everything we can to make it well. I would just so much rather make a movie that's worth people's time than make a movie that's on time."

The sequel is currently set for a June 29, 2012 release. Abrams has plenty on his plate, including the upcoming TV shows "Person of Interest" and "Alcatraz," and he reiterated that he wants the next "Star Trek" to be a worthy sequel.

"I'm not inclined to push it. I'm inclined to make a movie that's good and if it works out in that timetable then we'll all be thrilled," he said. "If it doesn't, when the movie comes out it'll be worth the wait."

One can only assume that there will be no appearances by Captain Kirk's arch-enemy Khan in this "Star Trek 2."

Are you looking forward to the next "Trek"? Are you willing to wait a little longer for it? Tell us below.

Sadly I will comment on a thread about a sci-fi movie... I found the new Star Trek to be a much better movie than any of the old Star Trek movies. I like Star Trek, and I watched all the old movies, but this reboot is better than the original in my opinion. The divering timeline was a good plot device to continue with the original characters.

I don't see why all the fuss about the changes done to the story. They are talking about a PARALLEL universe!!!. If you do not like this twist then I guess you don't like anything from DC or Marvel comics or most works of fiction for that matter; since this twist has been used on many shows and comics with much success. I would understand if we were talking about actual history but this movie as all the ones before are just fiction. I personaly was moved to buy the movie and have it home to watch it again. I have only done this with Blade Runner and the original Star Trek.

This new Star Trek "franchise" is a total hack job. I demanded, and received a refund for the 1st movie and I will most definitely not be seeing the second movie. To do what they did just showed a complete lack of creativity and disrespect to the product. What they're making is not star trek. F u jj.

After reading most of the comments I have to post something. I am a die hard fan. I love every show, movie and almost every book. This comment is for the nay sayers, the ones thats say this is not Star Trek. STUFF CHANGES. THINGS COST MORE. Are you that set in your ways, so closed minded you can not open your eyes to something different?
Its a different take on another story. A new story line to keep everyone waiting. Get over it. For the love of daylight grow up. If you are that sad that someone else took a different take on an old story, watch something else. I for one will be first or second in line to see the next movie , so go watch BSG or something. BTW they are all Clyons.

Yes, take your time with the sequel and do it right. The remake was better than I could have imagined and I"ve been a trekker since the 70's. I can't imagine anyone not liking the 2009 movie. It was just about perfect and treated the original with TOTAL respect. Go J.J.

Their mistake was trying to appease the young audience and at the same time keeping the original fans interested and have a full house. The movie ended up being average and most likely the sequel will be postponed forever. The old technique of multiple explosions and fast action money making formula, without a solid story behind it, does not work well for the more intellectual Star Trek fans.

Bad writing, bad movie. So they wanted young, fresh faces. They could have made them other characters in the past or the future. Why not do a sequel to Deep Space Nine or bring Star Trek New Voyages to the screen? I'd love to see the Excalibur with Quinto playing Capt. M'K'N'Zee of Calhoun (wearing purple contacts of course). Come up with a new ship and you can write your own rules!

Trekkers, Trekkies, Trekheads, are all junkies for anything Star Trek. Thus, no matter how good, or bad, the next instalment is, we will love it, and hate it for not being made in thrity years ago. Abrams needs to just get to work and make it. Junkies do not discriminate.

i'VE BEEN A TREKER SINCER B&W TV, TOO. I THOUHT THE NEW TREK WAS AWSOME AND TRUE TO THE PERSONALITIES OF THE ORIGINAL CAST. A GREAT BACK STORY. EAGER FOR THE NEXT ONE BUT AGREE QUALITY IS MOST IMPORTANT. JUST HOPE THEY GET THE SAME CAST BACK. IT WAS THE CASTING THAT MADE THE MOVIE SO PERFECT.

It's just a movie, people!! I like the New Star Trek infinitely better than the original series. William Shatner was a terrible actor and the others were so-so. I look forward to any new installments...

I am excited about the sequel and my husband and I will be there whenever it comes out! I agree that it is much more important to do it well than to do it on schedule. I love all the Star Treks – Classic, NG, the movies – its all good. I too thought that the casting people did a great job with the characters in the last Star Trek movie.

I've been a Star Trek fan since the mid 60's. I've been to over a half dozen Star Trek conventions and met nearly all of the principal actors from William Shatner to Nana Visitor. I have seen the J.J. Abrams version of Star Trek and was not impressed.
Sure, it had fantastic special effects. But it seemed to lack depth and character. And something called writing.
Now if someone could convince Paramount that they should look at a movie based on DS9, and come up with a writing team and a director that has a sense of Star Trek's vision, we might have something.
But as anyone who has been to many ST conventions and followed the industry gossip can tell you, it was made abundantly clear to the actors from the DS9 series that a movie was not in the plan for them. Paramount was concentrating on the cast of STTNG to the detriment of their colleagues from DS9. Too bad, because there were some very good storylines in DS9 that would make awesome movies.
So who's up for a Babylon 5 movie? JMS, I'm looking at you. Make it happen, man.

As a Trek fan, the remake was ...okay. Things that bothered me -
(1) Eric Bana isn't bad guy material. That was a definite miscast. That killed it for me. Clifton Collins Jr (Ayel) would have made a fantastic Nero. He has the talent to pull it off and make it believable.
(2) The first scene with Kirk the kid failed as background fodder. And as someone else stated, the product placement was a turnoff.
(3) I had a difficult time seeing Chris Pine as Kirk, however, he did manage to put in a few Shatner-like touches in the end. I assume that was to show the character's growth.
(4) While I like Simon Pegg, Scotty he is not. The Arctic scene where he is found felt almost Star Wars-ish.
(5) The same goes for Karl Urban. He channeled too much DeForest Kelly. They might as well have cast him, instead.

The lens flare and shaky cam is what made the movie so good jeez. Star Trek had become to polished. Make the movie right I don't care if it takes until 2013. Star Trek needed a reboot with a new story line unlike say Spiderman which is going to tank. In seeing interviews will all the main characters they are all eager to make another and I hope 1 or 2 more after that.

I I think the remake was terrible. It had great special effects, but everything else was wrong. Abrams changed the entire foundation of the Trek universe. I saw no positive vision for the future or any serious questioning of assumptions. This movie was a remake of Star Trek not only in a cosmetic sense, but they completely removed the substance. BTW Gene Roddenberry was a humanist and this position informed much of his writing in Trek. I saw no such sensibilities in the latest installment of Trek. As much as I love Star Trek I think it may be time to lay it to rest and tell new stories.

I hope they cast Gary Busey and Nick Nolte as Machiavellian Feringi who try and enslave the Federation through economic means. Elizabeth Berkely could play the role of Savik ( of course she would have had to be from somewhere other than Vulcan ) and help break the Feringi trade blockade of Earth. Dustin Diamond would also have to have a cameo. Awesome!

I can wait for a worthy sequel. Just promise us all JJ that you will avoid any time travel in this one. I think your over reliance on time travel as a plot device has grown tiresome. There are other ways to hold a story together. Put on your thinking cap.

I cant wait for the 2nd one to come out and hope it alienates original trekkie fans even more to the point that they will just go away. your time is over, from here on out you just sit at home in your federation outfits and watch all your vhs tapes of the "good ol days". lol

It is beyond absurd that it would take so many years to produce another movie. I am not just talking about "Star Trek" but all these major sci-fi or superhero franchises. What is the problem? Space ship, evil aliens, Kirk, Spock, and Bones... where is the 3+ years it's taking to make the darn thing?? Same for Superman. Just MAKE A SUPERMAN MOVIE like in the old days. Have a workable plot, and have him smash a lot of things!! But it's the new showbiz business paradigm. We as the audience prove we will sit around and wait five years between certain types of films. Maybe it's because so much more is out there to occupy our minds we don't notice how much time is passing??

Ditto to Julie's comment above of: "I agree, wait and get it right. It was a huge risk doing a remake – considering how many obsessive trekkies there are out there . You got it right and the new cast and storyline were fantastic. Keep getting it right, and you'll create a whole new generation of lavishly devoted fans. Star Trek is as much a statement of how we want to define the future as it is a sci-fi romp with cool special effects. Whatever it takes, don't f* it up to meet a timetable." Perfectly stated.

Buncha nerds. The reboot was great, it gave an almost dead franchise a much needed kick. Face the facts that Nimoy and Shatner are old old men and if the series is to continue, younger actors are going to have to play these characters. And frankly, the original series, it wasn't that great to begin with.

its not about being a purist. its not about being open to new ideas. its about shlock. this new movie is 100% shlock. theres nothing going on. take a ship and slap enterprise on it, get a jock to play kirk, a nerd to play spock and some hot chic to play uhura and youve got this movie. thats all this movie was. a heap of uninspired garbage with "star trek" slapped on the side. here's a challenge for JJ Abrams: instead of "working"/throwing darts at a storyboard with random plot points on it to create star trek 2, try writing a movie where i actually give a c__p whether or not all the characters are dead at the end. Lost was garbage, Star Trek was garbage , JJ Abrams is garbage.

Sequel was good in breathing life into it. Technical problems yes. The engineering room of the Enterprise was filmed in a brewer. The future is birght people, the Enterprise runs on BEER.
The original universe is still out there. Check out Star Trek online. It's just missing an Ambassador Spock.

When the new flick was in production, I told my brother, "This film is NOT FOR US - it's for a NEW generation of people who don't really know all the history, and others who never watched Star Trek before." So I watched it as a brand new product and enjoyed it immensely. I was very surprised that it had lots and lots of Easter Eggs for old fans to chew on. The story and tone are not the greatest, but the movie is fun, exciting, and respectful to the Star Trek franchise. I hope the sequel is equally polished and well made!

This right here is the difference between J. J. Abrams and a hack like Michael Bay. They were doing effects work for Transformers 2 before the script was even written because he just had to have the movie out on the right date. Glad to see someone working in Hollywood who wants to put out quality.

As a trekkie, I have to say the first (new) Star Trek movie was terrible. They completely ruined the series. They changed everything, which is true blasphemy for any true trekkie. They ruined Star Trek. I will not watch any future movies which is very disappointing. I was looking forward to these movies but they destroyed the story.

I've been a trekkie since the 60's originals...wouldn't miss any one of the movies either. I am happy to wait longer for a good movie than spend for junk. Glad to hear more time is being put into the next one. Too many movies are made in a snap just to get the $$ quick. There should be a good long string of the younger generation movies to come. I thought it was awesome and hope to be here to see them all. If not....then beam me up, Scottie!!

The remake was fine – for a remake. But why is it that we have so few ORIGINAL films any more these days? I was refreshed to see something like Hangover (NOT Hangover II) since it was creative and original. THAT is what gets me excited these days, not rehash after rehash of Star Trek, Rambo, Indiana Jones, yada yada yada.....

I enjoyed Abrams "Star Trek", but thought he should have found a way to sneak William Shatner into that film. I know that Shatner's character died in an earlier film, but the new film involved time travel and I think there were ways it could have been done. It would have been great if, at the end of the movie, we just heard Shatner's voice off-camera calling out to Nimoy, "Pssst! Hey, Spock! Over here!" Then Spock could have turned in the direction of the voice and said "Jim!" with a huge smile on his face. That would have been a beautiful way to end the film, suggesting that the original Spock and Kirk had found a way to somehow continue on their adventures together. It was a missed opportunity in an otherwise good movie.

If they didn't do the alternate universe angel, there would have been no poin to rebooting Star Trek from the beginning. I enjoy the twist, and look forward to the "Sequel." However, I hope it's not too long of a delay.

Did any of you panning the movie even see it? That was a GREAT movie! I cannot wait for the sequel. I am a big Star Trek fan – I own all of the movies, and have most of the original series on DVD and all of The Next Generation. In my opinion, they need to get Mr. Abrams off of those other TV projects, get this movie done, and.... maybe work with him to launch a new Star Trek series from this... I'd watch it!

It's not Star Trek without the original crew and Roddenberry at the helm. Unfortunately as you may know Roddenberry's ashes have been scattered in space. Jimmy Doohan, Deforest Kelley and several other stars from the original show also gone. Wait – I've got it. Somehow their ashes made it to another planet where the DNA spawns another Roddenberry, Scotty and McCoy, and the reborn cast and crew figures out how to turn back time and return the rest of the cast to their 30's...I got dibs on Yeoman Rand.

I watched the original series in the 60's and forward. When I went to see ST09 I expected to be disappointed and to my surprise enjoyed it. A nice mix of old and new with a new perpective of beloved characters. I hope the sequel will be all new villians and not a rehash. ST09 did a good job of setting up future movies to go where no one has gone before.

As a Trekker/Trekkie from Day 1 (Sept. 8, 1966) I think the BTF treatment of the new Trek was brilliant. Now to change things again, they can go to the Guardian of Forever and go back to try and prevent Vulcan from being destroyed.

I was never a Star Trek fan (the only interesting space story to me has been the Star Wars saga). But I went out on a limb and saw the remake in theaters after being interested from the trailer. I enjoyed it, and would see the sequel when it comes out again. It certainly doesn't mean I'm going to go out and watch the first 10 or so Star Wars films and all of the syndicated tv shows (and spinoffs).

If it hasn't been mentioned yet (there are an impressive number of comments on this story), this is a a different Star Trek, a different Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. The events of the time incursion by the Nirada completely altered each characters past. George Kirk died and could no longer be the influence on Jim Kirk's life. Jim grew up without a father and also lived in his shadow. He struck out on his own like so many do when the live in the shadow of a hero, with rebellion. JT's desires were to move as far from the legacy his father left. The move portrayed the effect of his fathers death perfectly.

Spock's relationship with Kirk was also altered. Their meeting at Starfleet Academy was that of an rebellious Kirk butting heads with a very superior Spock.

As for the rest, well, the Nirada's incursion and destructive power would, and did, have an effect on how Starfleet operated. The ships were larger and more powerful. This is a necessary reaction to an unknown force that threatened the security of Starfleet.

All and all a GREAT offering for a new Star Trek universe. I have been a fan for over 35 years and loved every minute of the original series. With JJ Abrams offering, and new an exciting chapter has been opened that paid wonderful homage to the Star Trek universe. Abrams sequel deserves the attention and time it needs to follow an original idea. If he does this right, audiences will meet new villains and characters. Let's not rehash or reboot Khan, The Borg, or Mudd. It's a big NEW universe. Surely there are even greater villains and comedy side kicks out there.

I enjoyed the 2009 Star Trek, and the cast was great especially Zach Quinto & Karl Urban. Still I would love to see a film featuring the cast of "Star Trek: The New Frontier" with Captain Mackenzie Calhoun which would move the story into the late 24th century and forward. Hey, Peter David, get to work on it, please.

I liked the new Star Trek movie. I like that they put it in an alternate dimension. This way it won't affect the Star Trek canon, not that canon ever stopped them from changing the backstory every before. It would be interesting to see the development of this new Star Trek universe. Maybe they should do another TV series.

doesn't sound like a quality issue as much as he's willfully too distracted by other projects he could have passed on or pushed off till a later time. there is no way they can make that movie in a year.

It's not that serious, folks! Some of you are acting as if the world were coming to an end simply because you didn't like the movie. I'm a science-fiction fan, and a Star Trek fan, and I liked Abram's movie. The Star Trek franchise was floundering, and I'm glad a movie was made that reinvigorated interest in it. I think the choice in a director was very good, and the casting was superb. I can get over the time-line changes. I'll definitely go see the next Star Trek movie. And when Abrams gets tired of making Star Trek movies, and someone else takes over the helm, I'll go see those as well. As with past Star Trek movies, some I will like, and some I will not like. But II will still go see them, because I am a fan of Star Trek.

I enjoyed the film, but I hope the sequel has a little more gravitas and doesn't play so fast and loose with what the characters are supposed to be or with science. Star Trek is supposed to be more science fiction than space fantasy (not that there's anything wrong with space fantasy – I love Star Wars too, but Star Trek is not supposed to be Star Wars).

I'm a Star Trek fan from way back and was astounded at how how thoroughly awful JJ Abram's film was. Kirk goes from being a juvenile delinquent civilian to being captain of a star ship in the course of a few weeks? Just one of many absurdities and inconsistencies. The cinematic concept of "suspension of disbelief" only works if you don't stretch it beyond the breaking point. Abram's film is for people who like explosions and special effects and where plot exists solely to have a reason to show more explosions. To enjoy a movie like this, you have to be able to turn down your IQ to about 60. My own theory: anyone who enters a theater to see the next one will be given a set of 3D glasses that blinds them, and then will be herded into a tunnel where they will be ground up into Soylent Green, and then stuffed into the hot dogs at thst concession stand. If I write a screeplay about this, do you think I could get JJ Abrams to direct it?

No, it was over three years. The scene where Kirk, McCoy, and Uhura take the Kobayashi Maru test was three years after Kirk entered the Academy. Still, it was silly that Kirk went from Cadet to Captain in a few days. But really, my biggest gripe with the movie was blowing up Vulcan.

The REAL truth to this is most likely the next sequel will be the last of the Star Trek Franchise.
Since they RETARDED canceled Enterprise right when it was getting started nothing new besides these two movies have come down the pike as well as closing the Star Trek experience.

Why Paramount would willingly do this when Star Trek has been like gospel to millions of paying fans and over 30 years worth as well as inspired invention, motivation and hope for mankind.

Popular put so much economical value on space travel and exploration as in you won't do it unless you get paid to.
In the world of Star Trek you do because you want to expand your knowledge, professionalism and you are paid in your every whim need is taken care of instead of just plain greed.

Over population and dwindling resources should be motivation enough to push man to the stars but I guess we control population through wars and man made diseases being that there are no predators for humans..

Take all the time you want for a sequel. The more time between that and the over-the-top, ridiculous first one, the better. I just can't fall in with the drumbeat of how great the first one was. It had: a terrific, inspired cast that was: betrayed by a ludicrous (even for a sci-fi film) plot-line, a superman interpretation of Kirk, yet another all-or-nothing story, and a dizzying, MTV video edit. For the sequel, please give us a calmer crew, a reasonable mid-sized story (heroes don't have to save the universe EVERY outing) and a more mature direction in editing. Don't feel bad, the first Star Trek movie suffered many of the same problems, then came back with the winning Wrath of Khan. This is a young, talented cast that can last for many years. Create a path for them to follow instead of staking everything on every release. And for god's sake, please limit Kirk to the laws of physics & human abilities. I'm willing to wait...

I'd love to see the sequel as long as it's a good movie and doesn't crash like Ironman 2 did, that was awful. I'm willing to wait for a good product, not rushed junk. Would I wish for a better engine room set, yep. That was the only real detractor from the last movie's set. Otherwise it was a great movie. More Uhura might be necessary.

Faithfully watched the original TV show. Saw all the movies at the theatre and loved most of them. Watched the TV sequels (Next Generation, etc with limitied enthusiasm). However, I did enjoy most of the the Next Generation movies. When I heard that J.J. Abrams was going to be involved in making the movie, I got concerned. To make a long story short, I walked out of that movie saying "wow!". I loved it. But I do have to admit, if Leonard Nimoy had not been in it, I may have had different thoughts.

The problem with the new Star Trek is that it is stupid: Tomulus blows up, a Romulan ship goes into the past and completely overlooks the fact that in the past Romulus hasn't blown up yet. So, instead of trying to save his world, he sets out to avenge the one that hasn't blown up yet. Spock too comes back in time, finds the timeline changed and his homeworld destroyed, but even though he's journeyed to the past before he decides what the heck, lets go with this timeline instead. Dumb and Dumber.

Finally, we have Captain Kirk, no longer a play buy the rules tough commander, but instead an untouchable punk. This is the new Star Trek: no brains, no rules.

The remake made Star Trek V look good and that is a hard thing to do. Calling this sequel Star Trek 2 is a down right insult to the greatest Star Trek movie ever made. A movie considered by even non Star Trek fans to be a great movie. You guys can have the new Star Trek for the ADD generation. I will stick with the ones that used special effects to compliment the movie, not be the focus of the movie. Back when Star Trek had some majesty and dignity.

I hated the remake for one single thing: Spock and Uhura would never be unprofessional enough to make out all the time while on duty. You want them to have a romance fine but make it a romance that fits their rank and professionalism.

ST2009 was a movie (like so many others of late) about children for children. The child idolization in American continues driven my major corporations' greed. Google "Why everything sucks" by Craig Ferguson.

The biggest problem with the "new" Star Trek is that it suffers from a case of the stupids. This Romulan idiot goes back in time after his world is destroyed and seeks vengence without apparently realizing that in the past Romulus is very much in tact. He might have dashed over to the home world and said, "hey, you're going to blow up, so you might want to do something about that." Spock too knows full well how to change the past, but instead decides that even though Vulcan has been destroyed, he's cool with that and decides to just go with it.

Finally we have Captain Kirk: no longer a strong play by the rules leader, but instead an untouchable punk. This is star trek???

The best possible thing that could have happened to "Star Trek" is if nothing was made after the original 1960s series. It should have been left alone as a neat little TV show that had its time and place. Everything done since has been a bore.

I guess I have a different opinion than the purists. I think the first Star Trek series s-u-c-k-e-d and the first few movies weren't very good either. TNG was by far my favorite of the series, mainly because it had different actors and the stories got a lot better. That's exactly what the 2009 remake did. It took a series that had terrible acting, terrible effects (they do not survive time like Star Wars), and even worse imagination. Those who liked the original Star Trek series but do not like the 2009 remake are the same people who probably agreed with that one guy in the early 1900s who said he wanted to close the patent office down because there was nothing left to invent...

As a "loyal" Trek fan, I can only say that the 2009 film was a giant middle finger to the last 40 years of the franchise. "Hey, guess, what, everything that happened... didn't really happen." YES, the film was entertaining, and the cast was decent, but NO WAY am I interested in a second film. I'll stick with reruns and DVDs of that which happened from 1966-2008.

Abrams really needs to be more dedicated to Star Trek, and with that, dedicate more of his time to Star Trek even if that means dropping other projects. If Abrams has too much on his plate, then Star Trek should not be the project that suffers.

You definitely do NOT want to rush a sequel in a franchise that has such a dedicated cult following like Star Trek or Star Wars. We all saw what happens when you do that... you end up with Attack of the Clones and a bunch of PO'd geeks.

I gave the remake an A for execution and a C+ for story. I'm just not that into plots centered on time travel, I guess its just a personal preference. For these reasons I think that the producers need to take as much time as they need to produce another great film, and if the story is more in line with traditional Star Trek then that would be even better.

i've been a trek fan since 1970, when i was 3 years old and started watching original trek in syndication. i initially refused to see the reboot based on principle, because it sounded like a big cheat. then i was flying to switzerland and saw it listed as one of the in-flight films, so i figured what the hell, i might as well watch it. and i was sorry that i didn't see it on the big screen. it was a fantastic film that did justice to the original portrayals of the characters. the whole alternate universe/time travel tool has been part of the trek universe since the original series, so you really can't cry foul now on that point after 40 years. i will admit that some of the plot devices were a little goofy and made no sense (e.g., if the enterprise were traveling at warp, they would have been across the star system before scotty would have been able to beam the guys aboard the enterprise at warp, or the fact that everyone on board the ship seemed to be out of an mtv video instead of seasoned space veterans you would expect on the fleet's flagship). but the first 10 minutes of the film blew me away, as george kirk's sacrifice was simply heart wrenching. i'm anxious to see the sequel but i hope they don't go for one of the obvious villains from the original series. how about the gorn or trelane? and how about a great sub-plot involving uhura and nurse chapel (whose name is mentioned in sickbay when kirk is having his allergic reaction) vying for spock's affections?

the thing about the remake is, yeah they changed it, but nobody came into our houses and stole our copies of the original episodes or movies (the dvds with the added special effects are kinda cheesy) but hey the more trek the better, eh?

Given that alternative universes and timelines were already part of the "Star Trek" universe, I thought this was an elegant solution to getting to experience a whole new lifetime of adventures with the same characters. It worked for me.

Mr. Abrams .. take your time. Do it right. Don't aim for some arbitrary deadline, do the movie the right way even if it takes another 6 months to a year. It's more important to turn out a good film then to have a mediocre film sooner.

Though I wish they did not do the alternate universe concept to fit the new storyline/reboot, I did very much enjoy the movie much more than I thought. The original series was good because of the comeraderie amongst the characters, not the story lines necessarily (as some really were dumb). The reboot movie was true to many of the original characters despite altering the history of Star Trek as many know it. I was disappointed at the alternate timeline, but liked the characters enough to move on and smile at the dialogue and be happy.

I loved the remake of the original series. I'm in the next generation set, so the last Star Trek Movie gave me a whole new appreciation for the original cast of characters. I fell in love with the franchise all over again, and I didn't think it was possible. After TNG Nemesis I thought the franchise was dead. I'm willing wait for a worthy sequel.

its funny to see all these people say "blah blah it sucked blah blah"
it obviously was popular enough and made enough money to make a sequel.
you dont like it, don't see, it nuff said you don't have to go see it
besides the director said before he even released it "This is not your fathers Star Trek"
PS: Star Wars will always win so stop trying MUAHAHAHAHAHA

Sincerely
Anonymous

PPS: "Here's what Gene said in an interview just before he died in August 1991," he says. "Somebody had asked him, 'What's going to become of 'Star Trek' in the future?' And he said that he hoped that some day some bright young thing would come along and do it again, bigger and better than he had ever done it. And he wished them well."

Abrams and cronies only know how to screw around with the space time continuum. I hated what they did and will NOT being seeing anything else they ever do. They started with TNG and onto other series which they TOTALLY DESTROYED. Abrams do us a favor and take a phaser to the brain and go away.

I almost boycotted ST when I found out Shattner was not in it. Then I heard Nemoy would be in it, so I bought a ticket. I was blown away at how well they cast the show. All the main characters were portrayed superbly. I would vote to have the next movie done right rather than fast.

Ok fans, foes, haters and lovers... IT'S A REBOOT/REMAKE, ok??!! The franchise was DYING and this breathed new life into it, exposing it to people who would NEVER have seen a Star Trek movie or on TV unless forced to by parents. I've been a fan basically since the first episodes were new, yet it wasn't until my kids saw this movie that they gave the old episodes, Next Generation or any of the other shows a chance.

I think JJ Abrams did ok (not great) but that the cast represented what I remember about ST:TOS. The main rule broken from the "Star Trek Cannon" was "no timetravel." Other than that hideous thing (sarcasm intended), it was a decent movie and a better "reboot" than most other recent attempts. I for one am looking forward to new movies.

I've heard they are floating an idea in an episode from The Next Generation about a "biological space ship" called Gumtoo (sp?) and it's lone companion who is a gifted "sensitive". Rumors at this point, but if they use the original story line, it would be fantastic.

I thought the movie was a terrific way to create more Trek adventures. I admit I was heartbroken to have Spock's mother killed, but it was necessary to move the franchise along. Loved it and wait in great anticipation for the next! Keep up the great story telling.

Personally, I would rather see a quality movie than one that is rushed out. I really enjoyed the 2009 Star Trek movie and though that everyone cast did a great job. Personally, I would love to see another one, and with the prequel time line, it makes the picture for story lines even larger. This story line that was after Archer, but going back to the early days of how the crew all came together and began their voyages on the Enterprise is definitely something that is worth pursuing. JJ Abrams clearly has an interest in writting good story lines and has the desire to put out a quality movie. I think Star Trek fans will embrace the new movies and story lines. I say make the 2nd movie, and make it worth the wait. If it's late, it will have that much more anticipation.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country actually IS the best Star Trek motion picture to date.
and why why WHY does everyone think the JJ A. movie involved an "alternate universe"??? Did you not pay attention to ANY of the movie? It was well done and like most movies, could have been better, but no complaints worth dis'n the movie over.

Star Trek 11 was an absolute abomination. Please, please, please, do not see this film. Star Trek ended when Enterprise went off the air. Abrams is more concerned with lens flares and ridiculous story lines than making anything close to what Star Trek is about or what Gene Roddenberry believed in. He should be behind bars.

Well said! Abrams movie is all fluff and it adds NOTHING to the Trek universe. In fact it actually misrepresents what Roddenberry was trying to say. I think this latest installment of Trek would have been better off with a different name that is totally unrelated to Trek. Then I would have liked it a little better. Maybe?

Wow guys (Sam, Jeff and others arguing over whether or not the remake was crap), I'm a life long Star Trek fan (yes, I did watch the original series as a kid in the 60s, thats how old I am) and I loved the remake; a huge surprise to me too.
I am definitely looking forward to the sequel and wish JJ would get a move on!

I really hate sequels that rewind the past movie's. It is too early in this franchise for Khan, unless it is also about his beginning. I intend to wait for a great Trek, but not too late as to pass the semi-expected end of days in dec 2012, i hate missing great movies...

Someone earlier said that "Star Trek: Undiscovered Country" was the best Trek movie. Clearly this is not an opinion shared by millions of other movie goers. Clearly this is not an opinion shared by Trekkies. Clearly this is just an opinion.

"Lens Flare" Hehehe! To be honest, I like 2K9's Trek. The only minor problems I had with it were the JJ Abramisms it had. These "isms" include: 1) Lens Flare (as has been beat to death) 2) All music/No sound effects/dialogue during "STRESS! STRESS! STRESS!" scenes (see Mission Impossible 3, moments on Lost, Alias, etc.) It gets old fast- when it happened in the movie at the beginning with Nero attacking I actually rolled my eyes. 3) Michael Giacchino music. Amazing composer, but he has no themes (yet) as memorable as John Williams or, say, Alexander Courage (when the original Star Trek theme finally came about in the end credits it was welcome and overdue!) Plus all of Giacchino's music sounds alike in structure and style. BORING (even if John Williams has a Perfect 5th fetish his themes are at least inspiring) (((Way too many parenthesis))) Seriously though, I look forward to a sequel- though I hope Kirk is more "Kirk" than "John Crichton" aka Ben Browder from Farscape. Watch any episode of Farscape and tell me Chris Pine wasn't ripping off Ben Browder! Carry on, Trekkers!

They won't get me back in to see another Star Trek film until they pick up where Nemesis left off and show Geordi fixing Data. that movie almost killed the franchise making people think we lost Data. dumbest thing they ever did!

This is the new trek forget the old one its history,If you want to live in the past then Buy the DVD's. Trek was over, It jumped the shark, This new one breathed new life into it, This is the New Trek Like it or hate it, this is they way it will be.

I carried a star trek Lunch box to school with Spock on the lid, I was 10 when the show was cancelled the first time around, I thought the remake was great!

I don't mind waiting at all! I'd much rather have a great movie that doesn't disappoint generations of fans, versus having it come out on time. He knows how much he has to live up to – if he rushes it & pushes it out before his better judgement, I know I won't go see it. Keep up the good work, JJ!

I agree with many of the posts here that the JJ Abrams Star Trek was ridiculous. Star Trek doesn't need a reboot or a remake. Why does it have to continue on in in sequence? Many Trek fans I know think that telling the story of Kirk et al. prior to the 5 year mission would be something worth watching. I think maybe the difference is that there are people who are loyal to the Rodenberry universe and then there are people who want a good science fiction movie. If you want something other than Star Trek go elsewhere. Messing with the history of Star Trek, to it's fans, is the worst kind of Orwellian revisionism.

Bob, thing is, it's not messing with the history, it's a different timeline altogether. I'm hoping this next movie will be better than the first, which was a little cheesy at times, but acceptably so. I don't understand why so many people dislike the idea of new Star Trek movies so much. Nothing is happening to "your" Star Trek – they have already been scripted, filmed, produced, released, & put on DVDs & Blu-Rays (of which we own many!) – it's not like the new Star Trek is a crack in space & time that ceases the existence of everything it touches! You can still enjoy the Star Trek you grew up with.

That was the BEST analysis of the reboot ever. I wish it could be posted everywhere people don't like the new version. You did a great job! And so did Abrams. I could live without the little creature and all the solar flares–but other than that–great movie. And I have been a Trek fan since the very first episode, which I watched when it was first ran. Yes, I'm that old.

Concerning the use of Kahn in the next movie: The old Spock will surely let the young Spock and Kirk know about all the great dangers in the galaxy from his memories. However, as the new crew is trying to defuse problems they were warned about by the old Spock, something could go wrong. Now that could be a movie.

I'm definitely a trekkie and was prepared to hate the remake...but I was surprisingly impressed...there was a couple of elements that were weird but speaking as a trekkie it was well done. So, take your time and do it right.

Hey what no one seems to understand is that Star Trek 2 should be JJ's focus instead of some stupid tv shows that are just excuses for burger and car commercials. Why doesn't JJ Lens flair just quit tv and focus on going where no one has before?

The movie moved fast and entertained, but like a drive-through burrito at 2 a.m. it didn't really digest all that well after I got home. The actors were young and entertaining, but the whole script had that Abrams touch (and I don't mean that in a good way). Senseless coincidences and miraculous impossibilities in a steady barrage designed to elicit a cheap response from an audience, but without enough thoughtful consideration to make any sense later on. But it really was good light entertainment and made a lot of money. It's just a shame it wasn't more substantial.

Nobody likes reboot sequels..Star Trek, Willy Wonka, Godzilla, Land of the Lost......sometimes it has nothing to do with the actual movie, its that it interferes with our orignal experience of the movie itself...especially if we saw it in our formative years. Willy Wonka was great, it wasnt the orignal and the the original was great for its own reasons. Instead of dissing it, why dont we appreciate it for what it is? I own both copies and I always watch them back to back.

I loved the original series. I loved the old movies (except for 5, which was terrible). I love the new movie and I look forward to the next.

I think they need to introduce an alternate timeline concept like "quantum bias" or "quantum echoes" where some plausible sounding quantum concepts are invoked to justify introducing homages to story ideas (with a twist) from the original series.

Since this movie predates the original series, we would be more likely to see story elements from the series way before any of the story elements from the movies.

I can almost hear Spock saying something like "just as the initial conditions don't uniquely define the final outcome, the final conditions don't uniquely define the initial" and "just as timelines diverge, they can also converge, usually in entirely unexpected ways."

From a movie production standpoint The last movie was good. From a Star Trek standpoint is was horrible. The plot jumped around far too much and was inconsistent. It also lacked much of the general logic that made up what everyone has known as Star Trek. If the goal of the movie and the next one is to simply make money and woo non trek folks to the box office have at it. I for one will pass.

I thought the first one had too many "fluffy" areas....like Scotty sliding around inside the plumbing and Kirk being just a BIT too much of a frat boy. In general, though, I liked it. JJ should get moving on it and let some of these moronic TV shows slide.....most of'em are rehashes of Lost, anyway!! Oh, and Super 8? It's just ET on steroids...that's all....

Personally, I liked the remake. From a business perspective, it made excellent sense to reboot the timeline, because then they could mine all the known story lines and add twists. Star Trek has always been rather poor on enforcing what is official or "canon" in the Star Trek universe; the books had a tendency to disagree with the series and vice versa. The Star Wars franchise has been much better and keeping the different media (movies, books, cartoons, comics) coherent. With the reboot, Star Trek can start fresh and maybe do it right this time.

Need to fix the time line. The whole Star Trek series as most of us know it will never happen. I am surprised the time police did not come back to correct it or that no one did a sling shot around the sun. It was all special effects but the concept of Star Trek was misplaced.

A lot of nay-sayers on this thread. Bummer. I thought this new Star Trek was well cast and well acted. The writing was good, the directing was excellent, and creating a break in the original time line was a stroke of genius, since it leaves them free to go in whatever direction they choose. I would rather Abrahms takes his time with the next movie, and hope he doesn't bow to studio pressure. All the studios want is to make money, and since medocrity often pays better than good work, there is bound to be some pressure to hurry. Don't give in, JJ!

I'm not saying it was awful and they should all be shot against a wall; give me a break. I just didn't like it, and I can't get excited about another helping of something luke-warm and lumpy. They could have gone forward in time and shown a future generation of the Federation: real AIs, force-field ships, self-transporters.

I just checked, and it's official: nobody cares what crap movies you do or don't watch. Don't like it? Don't watch it. But to come in to a discussion with nothing but awful things to say about a movie that is very popular is just a dick move. You must be the kind of people who can't say what they want in real life, so they feel like doing it to everyone on the internet. Instead of that, next time just tell the moron at McDonald's that they forgot your apple pie and stop being so beta.

I am a huge Star Trek fan and I loved the remake. I thought it was very brilliantly remade and I appreciated the alternate universe. I loved the casting decisions, I thought Karl Urban was going to bomb as McCoy but he ended up being my favorite. My only request for the new movie is: MORE SCOTTY. So if Abrams wants to take his time to make it, I trust him to make a sound decision. He won me over.

Sure I'll wait. I'd rather it be a quality script rather than something rushed just to get a product out. I thought the reboot was really good. The writers also showed some great ingenuity in how they preserved the original series BUT made this new version its own by creating a separate timeline.

So yeah, I'll wait...I'd love to see it sooner rather than later but quality is more important.

Wow all the thoughts on remake. Does anyone really pay attention to the story in this version of Star Trek? It's from the BEGINNING of Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise's career. No way would Khan appear yet, that wasn't until Kirk was in his 30's for goodness sake! Just bring it, it'll be good no matter what. The casting of the younger version of Kirk's Enterprise was brilliant, they all have the older versions down pat. Just bring it!

Well, Khan and his crew have been marooned in space on their own ship for a century or so (the original 1996 launch date already obsolete) and if J.J. really wanted to bring Kirk and Khan together, they could track-down the Botany Bay easily enough from the area of space Old Spock would recall since it's supposedly just drifting along at sublight speed. However, ST09 Kirk is still too young to be a credible opponent to Khan. Make a fanfic novel for those who want to see that. It'd be more logical to just to the Botany Bay to some uninhabited livable planet (not Seti-Alpha V obviously), bring Khan and his crew out of stasis under heavy guard and just set them down there like Kirk did and avoid all the conflict. Not as much fun, but more realistic and practical.

Glad they did not remake the Wrath of Khan how about the Space Seed...wished they would have not killed him..took less money to do the role cause he liked it. I thought the acting was good too no need for CGI back in 82.

42 yrs old, and just about life-long Star Trek fan (though not much of a Abrams fan). A couple boxes of ST books...chess and checkers sets...limited edition etched laserdisc of Kirk and Picard...Riker uniform hanging in my closet (though I'm not quite the same size I was 20 years ago)...both badge / emblem sets...etc. Maybe not as fanatical as I was, but still above average on the fan-o-meter. My wife and I took her mom (who is a fan right from the start) for Mother's Day. Not only did we love ST2009, we wanted to get back right back in line and go again. It is quickly catching up to ST II-TWOK and First Contact as my most watched. Eagerly waiting to see what they do next. (Though I could do with a bit less lens flare.)

I loved the series from the original through Voyager. Some of the movies were so-so and some were good. The reboot was crap. It was silly, over-acted, it tried too hard and turned the characters into characatures. I won't watch any sequel.

I know that the timeline has been skewed by Spock and Nero's interference, but won't spock be able to warn the Federation about threats such as V'ger, the Borg, the whale probe, and the Founders. Seems like Spock can really help out.

As tempting as it would be to make a movie full of "intervention missions" to take out the Doomsday Machine (and save Matt Decker in the process) or Nomad or the "super amoeba" ahead of time, it would just wind-up being like refurbrishing the old series with better f/x (which was done to tepid fan support) AND different actors. While the fans of this premise could be satisfied by making it a subplot mostly taken care-of by other starthips (Kirk can't be the only one who can deal with these things) and perhaps just referrenced as a backstory, the primary characters should be free to persue new and unique scenarios instead of just re-living the old ones over again. Besides, if "Old Spock" starts doling-out priviledged information about future events, word will get out and it could even start a war once the Klingons and (especially) the Romulans and perhaps even the Ferrengi get wind of the Federation's "advantage" in information. Would Old Spock find it a moral imperative to keep his information to himself, considering the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few? This is more the stuff of a novel.

I admit liking the 2009 Star Trek very much. The casting was superb, and that in itself is almost miraculous. At first I was bothered when they "cheated" in creating a separate time line to weasel out of the complications of staying within established canon, but I got over that. Still, one thing did bother me ... I would love to know if Roddenberry (a WWII veteran and a policeman) would have blessed a script where a cadet steps out of school straight into a captain's role? Guys, this is science fiction, not fantasy (ha ha ha). All that said, I am curious to follow their journey ..

I barely ever watched the original, but one thing I know for sure is that this movie was excellent. I'm glad he's not in a hurry to get it out like the people responsible for the Twilight films. As a general rule of thumb, the more planning and thought that goes into a movie, the better it will be.

its kinda cool how "things came to be" like tracking of moving objects for transportation, spock's early bully days. to think that one day, maybe the human race can be as smart as these kids on starships. pretty darn cool.

I thought the movie was entertaining but I disliked their use of time travel. It changed too much, I though the plot was boring. Honestly, I'd be more interested in a post-next generation tv show with Captain Wesley Crusher. Sorry, I'm a dork...

I think the next Trek should have the character Gary Mitchell, Kirks buddy from the Academy Days, and Carol Marcus. Gary should be portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal and Carol Marcus should be Elizabeth Banks. It should have a love triangle, and Mitchell should betray Kirk..oh..and throw some Klingons with Smooth Heads and goatees in there too..

ST2009 was a great movie...great plot twists...great acting...great effects! JJ needs to break the Every-other-Trek-sequel-sucks curse. I would rather not see Khan in a sequel...TWoK was so well done they should leave the story alone. I'd like to see the Planet Killer or the creatures from Liquid Space on DS9 where cool too...no Borg – been beat to death.

I got bored with LOST when I realized they were going nowhere. I stopped watching it. I hear in the end they just made up some stuff and said 'The End.' Maybe I'll rent it one day. STAR REBOOT bored me, too. It was lifeless.

In the original series they did a show about "getting a piece of the action". Have them go back to the planet and see what kind of a piece they got! The sequel depended on fluff, but the idea of rebooting the series was great.

I've always been curious as to why the new Enterprise looks like a bad 1950's hood ornament. One guy did a spectacular re-imagining that still evoked the original that he posted on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aON_SnlcPA4

Amen, Brother!! I've been complaining about all of that glare ever since I saw it! I kept asking people around me why isn't there any glare-resistant glass in the 23rd century? We have glare-resistant glass now. Did they lose the recipe?

Hollywood take note: ALL movies should be worth seeing and MOST are not,, 90% of time I've wasted my time and money, Star trek however was a decent one....of the few that are.....the PG-13 pablum slopped upon us are major disappointments most of the time, so much so I RARELY ever go to a theater to pay the 12 bucks (or more)

Anyone saying it was a travesty or terrible is trying to be a purist for the sake of being a purist. You can't honestly tell me you would have rather seen an almost exact copy of the first movie with better graphics? The alternate reality was brilliant in the fact that it left the original movies to stand alone. By doing so he didn't create a war between fans of the new vs fans of the old. They can both be judged independently of each other.

...or they could have come up with original characters and found a director that isn't only interested in churning out garbage for 14yo boys. Why screw with great characters with great histories? Make up new ones and ruin those.

Abrams is amazing at coming up with the beginning of a story, but always loses interest midway through, and leaves the audience unsatisfied. Look back through his entire filmography, and you'll find great idea after great idea, which is then abandoned half way through. He still owes his fans an apology for what he did to them with ALIAS, with LOST, and with his mangling of STAR TREK. His "waiting to get it right" excuse could be an honest attempt to get a good script, but its more likely that he's already lost interest in the project, and is just doing it for the money.

I liked the 2009 Star Trek and although I'll admit it's sort of a betrayal of the franchise, that franchise needed a reboot more than any other. I'm usually the first one to hate on remakes but 2009 Star Trek was ok in my book.

I agree with Sam. This film was a travesty. I am just glad JJ Abrams had the decency to wait until both Gene and Majel Rodenberry had passed. I regret seeing the first movie and will not see any sequels made.

A travesty??? In what way?? I'm an enormous trek geek since I'm 13 or so....I enjoyed the hell out of the new film...even if some things are different...Love interest for Spock, Vulcan is destroyed...Different sequence of events leads to Kirk getting the Enterprise...........It was a damn entertaining and good film. Sure you could find plot holes, but it was very good. Why did you think it was a travesty?

Wow, just WOW – it had the misses blessing you should know your facts. Let me say this first I have watched every Star Trek episode from every series and have seen every movie made, I cherish the fact that my father and i watched the original series together it was our time and I"M POSITIVE he would've loved the remake as much as I did. He took this franchise in a new and totoally Cool direction.

Since Sam isn't replying yet; first, there is nothing wrong with the cast. They were terrific. It's the whole alternate universe thing that stinks. Easy to fix. How about, the movie starts in the original Trek universe with Kirk aboard the U.S.S. Farragut on the mission that led to him being promoted to captain at the youngest age in Star Fleet history and given command of the Enterprise? The rest of the movie is an adventure during which Kirk has to prove himself to his new crew. His one steadfast ally; his best friend and confidant, Gary Mitchell. There could be a whole series of movies that take place before the five-year mission is assigned.

True to a point, however, good story telling, particularly in a series, doesn't require negating the entire past of the series. For example, how about re-doing Lord of the Rings, Sauron wins? Then all the stories are about trying to survive under the rule of Sauron. But it's not LOTR anymore.

The new Star Trek universe does not "negate" anything in the original universe. The original Star Trek universe still exists (as much as it ever did as a work of science *fiction*) in all the shows/movies/books/etc. The new universe is simply an addition that is unconstrained by the chains that would have been imposed on it by previous star trek "history". It was a brilliant move by the writers, and a fantastic movie. After all, who wants to see a mere remake of old Star Trek episodes with modern special effects and different actors?

Dr. Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is the science behind sci-fi excuse that can be given to allow both universes to co-exist. There is no negation, in fact I'd say Abrams respected the trekkies that hate him so much enough to leave the canon of their precious universe virtually untainted and he still gets flak from them.

Assuming that there are some events that are inevitable because they were essentially unchanged by the chain of events in the Star Trek reboot, the future of Starfleet in the split universe is pretty bleak. There are just too many things that happened that were wholly dependent on the existence of Vulcan.

These are just two that pop into my head:

1.) Spock, at this point, will never have anyone to teach him the Kolinahr discipline, which means that he will not be in the proper position to feel V-Ger's approach during the events of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Because Spock's understanding of V-ger was necessary for the crew of the Enterprise to defuse the situation, it is highly probable that V-Ger will scan the earth for 'the creator,' observe that the planet is infested with carbon-based life-forms and eradicate them without anything to stop it.

2.) This one is actually even worse, because it is totally dependent on a.) Spock dying during 'The Wrath of Khan' and b.) the crew going back to the Genesis world to get him and THEN taking him to a planet that no longer exists for his katra to be reunited with his reborn body. If none of those things occurs, then when the alien probe approaches the earth at the beginning of 'The Voyage Home,' there will be no one to realize that the probe is emitting whale song and no one to go back in time to get the two humpback whales.

At that point, I assume the alien probe finishes the process of destroying the earth.

Of course, you can write your way out of these problems. However, they both illustrate the problem of 'writing outside the box' without thinking it through very carefully. These aren't difficult examples I am bringing up. They are very easy examples. And Star Trek's narrative history is so rich and so deep that there are undoubtedly dozens of events that the destruction of Vulcan now precludes from happening. And because of the inevitable chain reaction that occurs because those events never happened, what you essentially end up with is the destruction of the universe at some point or another.

Michael Thompson –
You forget one thing about the various issues you brought up in a Star Trek Universe without Vulcan – The Original Spock from the Original Timeline. He represents the one viable link between the two timelines. If you remember at the end of Abram’s Movie, he is going off to re-found a new Vulcan colony at some suitable planet. The “new” Spock DID save most of the Vulcan council that carries with them the cultural and scientific heritage of his species and planet. So, you see Abrams has left the new timeline WIDE open for not only fresh new ideas, but if we want, a re-imagining of old storylines. The “old” Spock can teach his younger “twin” the Kolinahr discipline for the future when V-GER approaches Earth. Perhaps they can even preemptively intercept it and make V-GER “one with the creator”. I am sure this can be done despite “old” Spock’s advanced age. He will undoubtedly recount alternate events just in case they have a chance at re-occurring, temporal discipline notwithstanding, and prepare “new” Spock for the possibilities before “old” Spock dies.

AND – OF COURSE Abrams has to bring back Khan! He and his immortals are still in suspended animation aboard the SS Botany Bay and can be “safely” revived and brought to a suitable planet to build their genetically engineered Superman Society. When all this Kumbaya does not work (of course), Khan will escape and wreak all kinds of NEW HAVOC! The possibilities are endless. Without Vulcan to lend its wisdom and guidance as a planetary culture, The Federation will be weakened to some degree. However, with the spiritual heart of Vulcan saved and ready to be reborn, perhaps the damage can be mitigated.

However, my biggest beef with the new timeline is with Spock getting it on with Uhura. Come on! That kid really is lost! Vulcan PTSD? Well, if we have any hope of Spock learning Kolinahr, he has to get his head out of the clouds and detach from her. Even though the “old” Spock learned the value of friendship and human emotions in the end, he first needs to completely master Logic. He cannot do that while constantly cavorting with a human female while outside of the Vulcan Pon Farr mating cycle. How can he do that anyway?

The remake was very good. Im looking forward to the sequel. To bad it wont be about Khan, although things can change. If they do something with Khan, then i can waite for it. Well see. GO HEAD ON STAR TREK!!!

I agree, wait and get it right. It was a huge risk doing a remake – considering how many obsessive trekkies there are out there . You got it right and the new cast and storyline were fantastic. Keep getting it right, and you'll create a whole new generation of lavishly devoted fans. Star Trek is as much a statement of how we want to define the future as it is a sci-fi romp with cool special effects. Whatever it takes, don't f* it up to meet a timetable.

II thought the remake was terrible, very immature writing in my opinion. When I saw what Damon Lindelof had written and the interviews where he said he was so proud of the script, I feared the worst for the end of Lost. Sorry that I was correct. They tried to appeal to a juvenile audience (the money) and they got a juvenile movie. I will NOT be watching the sequel.

You mean they didnt use standard formula in a chance that more people might become interested in star trek??? I know many people who saw the movie and then watched the previous movies who before would never have given them a second look. So i'll enjoy you not being there

I have been a Star Trek fan fort as long as I can remember and the newest movie is the best of the bunch, in my opinion. Up until the re-make, First Contact was my favorite of the films. I also likes 2 & 4 alot as well but Abrams' take has been the best yet

The question sounds like such a simple one–to make the movie good or not–until you consider just how much cash it takes to create a film like Star Trek, which makes the pressure to meet deadlines make a little more sense. Still, it's nice to see someone buck the accountants in the name of making good art, especially when you have over 40 years of Star Trek franchise history riding on it. Abrams understands that Trek fans don't want to have to struggle just to like a Trek film, and that loyalty is not to be taken for granted.

I thought that Chris Pine nailed some of William Shatner's idiosyncrasies in this movie. If you paid attention, there were some lines that I could have sworn were being said by a young Shatner himself.

How could Khan even be involved? That's impossible.

Spock's mom never died so she must be in some kind of transporter field being held for another movie?

Here's an idea for the second movie; show buck rogers in his penal transport ship shooting at the enterprise and Kirk destroy's it. LOL,,,that would be cool!

@Scott, Spock's mom very well could be dead. The end of the movie clearly states that the future is unwritten because of what happened and so all of the movies going forward do not have to stick to the old ones in any way.

The remake was campy at best. A cadet sudenly becomming captain? no way. A engineer that gets pulled through the 'plumbing' becomes chief engineer? and the big inflated hand like some sort of clown.... Campy is the best way to describe it, and I do not count it as Star Trek.

I wouldn't care if this sequel never came out. The first movie was a steaming, festering puddle of bovine dung. It was Star Trek in name only. If Gene Roddenberry had a grave, he would be rolling over in it!! I have been a fan of Star Trek since the beginning in 1966 but I am no Star Trek fan boy. There good movies and series, there were bad movies and series. With the exception of the series Enterprise, whether good or bad, they mostly tried to embody Gene's vision. Not the last Star Trek (actually Star Dreck!) I have no plans on wasting any money on any sequels of that turkey!

@Binky42 "I watched the first few minutes of the first movie, up until Kirk pulled out his Nokia cell phone, then I switched it off disgusted. I mean, product placement in the 23rd century? Give me a break!"

There has been product placement in other Trek films as well. Not a big deal. It helps to ground the film in some sort of gritty, realistic future, not a Star Wars fantasy land of CGI nonsense or a ST:TNG sanitized, greyscale depiction of the human race's finest hours. Anyone kwho stays away from a film made in the 21st century because of product placement isn't living in our reality.

definition of a troll, dummy, is someone that says something totally without any back up by facts, opinions or any credulity at all. Star Trek, withotu question, was an amazing movie. This was proven by the thousands of critics who said as much, the millions of fans and the millions of dollars it made. There were a few who disagreed, but this was less than 5% of the moviegoing public and critics.
So, the guys a troll and youre a dummy for not knowing the definition of a troll

This remake, reboot, re-imagining, re-do, re-whatever Hollywood calls it, sucked. I would not call myself a "trekkie", but I like the original show a lot and Star Trek VI – The Undiscovered Country, is an EXCELLENT movie, trekkie or not.

I love how thoughtless people need to justify their opinions by citing that "other" people liked it too, and it made a lot of money, and the "critics" liked it. If the critics were really honest about the barrage of crap they are forced to review, they would all be unemployed as it doesn't take much skill to keep writing the same 2 word reviews consisting of "it sucked", over and over again.

Although according to Bart Simpson, they would be 4 word reviews consisting of "both sucks and blows".

I agree completely, they just took a big dump on the complete history of Trek and said you know what these stories never happened. That is besides the point that they made the engine room of the Enterprise look like the boiler room in a 70 year old school.

Trekkie fundamentalists are hilarious, not willing to boldly go anywhere but their silly conventions and living in the past, when the spirit of the franchise is about mankind in general and the future.

since i was at work i could not fully back up my facts, but brian stated everything i intended to. The movie was dreadful for many reasons, and Abrams simply believed he could throw in a space time continuim thing and then do whatever he wanted. Utter stupidity and an insult to the series. One example I was planning on citing was how Abrams decided to put the entire crew onto the bridge of the enterprise directly out of the academy. not only onto the bridge but as the primary officers. thats like navy grads being placed at the helm of the flagship of USA navy. or marines just out of school heading up units. it does not happen now, and never did in star trek.

also to Norman-since when does critics saying they love the movie and dollar signs mean it is awesome? as other people have said, millions watch jersey shore, love justin bieber, and adore sarah palin.....or if you are rep, adore obama. your logic is flawed, and spock would find you a sad excuse for a human (thats the real spock, not abrams poopy one)

As a long term Trekkie....(former moderator of several star trek conferences) I think some Star Trek is better than others but any Star Trek is better than none. I thought this movie did an excellent job of carrying on the Roddenberry legacy.

Apparently you aren't up on current affairs...this article is discussing the Star Trek motion picture which was released in 2009 and NOT the Star Trek motion picture released in 1979! I've watched the show since the original series debuted and this movie blew the rest of them right out of the water; it captured the original Kirk's arrogance, McCoy's deadpanned humor, Spock's humanity inspired logic and the excitement of the original series. Calling Abram's version is a travesty is ridiculous....the 1979 version was the travesty!

@Suz: Well said; I agree completely. BTW, others have called the 2009 movie an 'alternate universe" story - it was not; it was time-travel, like Back to the Future, where the time-line got changed in the past. The brilliant thing is that they were able to 'reboot' the series and start from scratch, while keeping everything that had already transpired intact. I did have my doubts going in (I even avoided watching any promos or reviews), but enjoyed it thoroughly. Can't wait for the next one.

@Norman Wait.. part of your definition of troll is that they dont give an opinion? Which Sam did give. Then you continue to give your own opinion which is different from Sams. How ironic. I guess you are a troll too.

While I dont think the movie was a travesty, I did think it pretty much sucked. Let me explain with facts, so you dont think im a troll. The part where scottty beams back to the enterprise with kirk, getting stuck in the silly tubes... THAT would be an example of a travesty. Who wrote that part, a 8 year old kid hooked on video games? Stupid. ANd what was up with the engine room as a whole? The apparently filmed it in a oil refinery, just endless tubes and pipes everywhere... ridiculous. Now the actors were crazy perfect for the roles. An oscar should have been given to the casting folks. Wonderful. The rest, lots and lots of suck. SIlly story, silly writing, weird plot twists and strange set decisions. Overall, mostly suck.

The new movie was terrible. They changed everything about the story which is blasphemy for any true trekkie. They completely ruined the story, destroyed it. I and my friends were absolutely disappointed in what they did to it. What in the world were they thinking? The Star Trek story is destroyed.

Sorry the new movie sucked! big time. If you are a true trekkie it would be impossible to like the new movie. They changed the whole story which ruined and destroyed Star Trek. What in the world were they thinking? We were baffled and very disappointed when leaving the theatre and why they would write such a rediculous plot and destroy the series.

They were probably thinking "how can we get rid of all the trekkies who dress up and go to conventions and change star trek from a corny worthless series to something a new generation of fans can enjoy?" cant wait for the new one coming out!